Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Hardware => Topic started by: licquorice on October 07, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
-
Has anybody got a working IPv6 connection with BT Infinity using a TP Link TD-W9980? If so, what settings are you using. I know IPv6 is not universal yet so don't know if its my settings or its not enabled here yet, but at least if I have the right settings its a start.
-
Just resurrecting this thread to see if anyone has had any luck with IPv6 on the TD-W9980. I am now fairly sure my BRAS has been enabled for IPv6 but I still can't connect. The TP-Link seems to be fixed to expect a /64 prefix and doesn't appear to be configurable to the BT /56 prefix. TP Link just keep telling me where the settings are in the GUI rather than answering my questions as to whether they fully support IPV6PD. Any suggestions welcome.
-
Try this site first http://test-ipv6.com/ (http://test-ipv6.com/)and don't use chrome as it won't work and see what you get.
-
Thanks NS, but I'm not getting served an IPv6 address, the test site only confirms what I already know :)
-
Not even a IPv6 teredo tunnel see threads http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,18924.msg337492.html#msg337492 (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,18924.msg337492.html#msg337492)
-
The TP Link has 6 to 4 tunneling, but I was interested to see if native IPv6 would work. I have since had a reply from TP-Link support to say the 9980 doesn't support /56 prefix delegation only /64 :( :(
-
The TP Link has 6 to 4 tunneling, but I was interested to see if native IPv6 would work. I have since had a reply from TP-Link support to say the 9980 doesn't support /56 prefix delegation only /64 :( :(
I am on the same boat as you. Does it mean there needs to be new update released for W9989 in order to make IPv6 work?
My says 'connecting' as well but never get it.
-
Always assuming they intend to produce updated firmware, I have asked TP-Link the question. Will update the thread when I get a reply. Perhaps Kitz still has contacts in TP-Link that could indicate if an upgrade is likely. :)
-
If all else fails, the device should be fairly well supported by OpenWRT (except for the 5GHz wi-fi).
-
Always assuming they intend to produce updated firmware, I have asked TP-Link the question. Will update the thread when I get a reply. Perhaps Kitz still has contacts in TP-Link that could indicate if an upgrade is likely. :)
Great, looking forward to see what they reply.
-
Considering the age of the 9980, I wouldn't get your hopes up!!
-
As expected.
In that case, we'd like to tell you that the TD-W9980 doesn't support the 56 prefix delegated dynamic addresses, and it won't have plan to upgrade the firmware to support that, we are sorry for the inconvenience it caused.
Thank you very much for your kind understanding, have a nice day.
:( :(
-
Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood. -
I wouldn't set things up for a /56, stick with /64 for your lan, because as I understand it a fair number of systems assume a single lan is always a /64. The /56 is presumably to allow you to have multiple subnets or sites.
I have a /48 from Andrews and Arnold and the 16 bits above the low order 64 are to give me the facility to break the range up into multiple sites, so I could have 65536 offices! Currently I'm only using two or three /64s.
The original recommendation was that ISPs should be giving out /48s to everyone, which in my view is utter madness. Although 64 bits is a lot, we shouldn't be squandering the IPv6 address space at such a crazy rate that we end up using it all up and then having to renumber networks all over the place some day in order to repack the space properly. I would have thought that most domestic users have no interest in multiple sites, so a single /64 might be fine for them, and a /60 or /56 would be fine for really small businesses if they're never going to want more than 16 or 256 subsets.
At the rate they're going handing out /48s when Andrews and Arnold have a /32 for themselves, as many ISPs do, they're going to have to do something different as a limit of 65536 customers max (=48-32) isn't very sensible. Otherwise they'll have to get some more /32s which presumably won't be adjacent and so that means more difficulties with aggregation / summarisation, general routing table bloat, more difficult to use overarching ranges for firewall rules etc etc.
Currently I have to specify multiple IPv4 ranges in firewall rules in a messy way if I want to give AA access to something of mine. It's a lot easier with IPv6 as it's just one range to cover the whole ISP, and long may it remain so.
-
I would be quite happy with a /64, unfortunately BT in their wisdom only offer a /56 dynamic address. TP-Link only support a /64, ergo no connection.
-
Just had an interesting reply from TP-Link to my question asking which products support /56 IPv6PD!
Many thanks for your valuable reply.
For the moment, we don't have VDSL modem/routers supporting a /56 prefix delegated dynamic address. We are sorry for the inconvenience it caused.
Could you please tell us who your ISP is ? we may help to give this feedback to the senior so that there will be upgrade firmware to meet your needs.
Looks like they may be realising they have made a mistake in not supporting /56 dynamic IPv6PD!!
-
I'm sure responding that it's BT, and their oversight doesn't just effect a small niche ISP but the UK's largest ISP, will increase the likelihood of /56 IPv6 support. The case may remain the same that the TD-W9980 may not receive any forthcoming firmware upgrade that resolves the above problem.
-
I did indeed respond in such fashion. Hopefully they will realise the error of their ways.
-
Perhaps all this dynamic IP range nonsense is intentional, not just due to insane BRAS / BNG devices. It could be that these big domestic ISPs want to make sure that business users won't go near these deals and will have to choose something more expensive to get the addressing they need. For example, to be able to write firewall rules with known IP ranges mentioned in them, for site-to-site stuff too. My few mutually trusted ‘sites’ allow access from each other's IP ranges through static firewall holes, for example.
I do think it's a shame for future application developers though as everything like this makes it a bit more difficult to deploy new sexy kinds of IPv6 applications. IPv6 needs to be a clean break from all the bad practices and design mistakes made with IPv4. No NAT, no assumptions about single IPs only being assigned to an interface, scopes defined, link-local addresses explained properly, PMTUD, reliable zeroconfig, all those many good things.
-
The more I look at IPv6 IP address the more it confuses me as it uses hexadecimal now did all that hex to dec conversions years ago this is going to be a pain in the arse
-
Newtronstar: of course you can just treat the hex 16-bit words as black box blobs, and as you know domain names work S usual. You can also, as you're probably aware, use dotted decimal too anyway for 32-bit addresses, if the high-order bits are all zeros e.g. ::10.0.0.1
But I'm just used to typing e.g. 2001:8b0:1ce:: . I don't seem to ever do any hex conversions, and there's the fun of being able to do things such as face:b00c:dead:d1e etc (note the actual addresses Facebook's servers use, btw)
All kitizens remember to now wrap [ ] around numeric IPv6 addresses in urls (obligatory) e.g. http://[ff02::02] because this is needed to disambiguate, as it looks like a domain name not an address otherwise, and the colon clashes with the URL syntax for ports. So we also use http://[ff02::02]:8080 to specify non-default ports, as usual.
-
It so simply for you lets take the IP address on routers GUI with V4 address 192.168.1.254 now it looks like this on V6
IPv4 address: 192.168.1.254
IPv4 Mapped IPv6 Address: ::ffff:c0a8:1fe
Expanded IPv6 Address: 0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:FFFF:C0A8:01FE
Ipv4 dotted-quoad notation: ::ffff:192.168.1.254
:ffff:c0a8:1fe converted to decimal = 65535.49320.510
-
I've spent thirty five years doing decimal to hex, so I got the hang of it, but I'm nowhere near as good as I should be. I know someone who used to be able to type in Z80 code in decimal from memory, as he didn't have an assembler to start with. I was permanently in awe.
-
I know someone who used to be able to type in Z80 code in decimal from memory, as he didn't have an assembler to start with. I was permanently in awe.
He must have memorized the mnemonics as a decimal number for each CPU instruction 0 - 254